dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well duh. The 0.1% are probably either highly connected or donors (or both).

And the students who had hours of: test prep, essay support and tutoring. And time to pursue interests because they weren’t working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

I just looked it up and 15% of Harvards class is from the top 1%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university

That also says that 52% of Harvard students are between 80 and 99th %ile and 4.5% are between 0 and 20th. But somehow DCUM's take away is that the people in the 80th %ile are disadvantaged over the poor people.

+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.

The people making 175k are 100% full pay. Private universities like in this article are approaching $90k PER YEAR. $360K FOR AN UNDERGRAD degree--more than a house in most areas of the US.

People making $65-75k will be able to attend need-blind schools FREE. Ivies will be free. If you live in North Carolina and some other states--in state tuition is completely free. Anyone making under $150k in NC no longer has to pay a single dime for tuition in NC.

s0 YEAH--the families busting @ss in high cost living areas making $160k are rightly pissed they are paying $360k for a 4-year BS/BA degree when over 52% of the kids in their child's class are paying $0.

If 67% of Harvard is in the top 20% of income where are you getting the 52% figure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s why if your kid is waitlisted at certain schools - and you are not full pay - your kid won’t be taken of the WL ever (e.g, wake forest)….

?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

I just looked it up and 15% of Harvards class is from the top 1%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university

That also says that 52% of Harvard students are between 80 and 99th %ile and 4.5% are between 0 and 20th. But somehow DCUM's take away is that the people in the 80th %ile are disadvantaged over the poor people.

+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.

When you save, you accumulate money that disqualifies you from receiving need-based financial aid.

When you spend, you have no assets and your kid can go to college for free.

So you and your unbearable sanctimony have it all precisely backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

So what exactly do you propose a university eliminate or reduce to charge lower tuition? Most 80k+ schools have smaller class sizes---so would you prefer your kid sit in lectures with 300-500 kids for most of their classes? That way they can fire 1/3 of the professors. Let's go back to 1 cafeteria on campus for the 6K undergrads and make it just a normal college cafeteria like we had 30+ years ago.....2 entrees, salad bar, cereal and 1 dessert option for each dinner. No specialty dining or options because those truly cost money and it's much cheaper to run a basic cafeteria in one place everyone just has to walk 20 mins to get to.

Forget the new chemistry labs---kids can squeeze 100 into the lab space for their Orgo Chem lab instead of 25---more partners, less learning for you to do hands on.

I suppose I lived without shuttle busses on my campus 30+ years ago, so kids can just walk the 1.5 miles from one end to the other even at -5 degrees and 11pm, same for the campus security/safe walk---we lived without it, kids can today as well.

Yes they can cut some administration salaries, but the fact is universities cost a lot to run. Dorms cost more than apartments because they are not cheap---the RAs/RHD/services provided to help kids on campus cost money. Maintaining old dorms is expensive as well.

A significant chunk of the increase in college costs is administrative salaries and expenses. During college tours, I was struck by the sheer number of support programs that didn’t exist when I was in college. Back then they let you in and it was sink or swim. Now there are countless counseling and tutoring services — study skills, 24 hour writing center, specialized tutoring, identity support groups, etc etc. As I understand it, the goal is to increase graduation rates, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That’s great, but it’s not cheap, and a largely hidden cost of expanding the populations served by these institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

I just looked it up and 15% of Harvards class is from the top 1%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university

That also says that 52% of Harvard students are between 80 and 99th %ile and 4.5% are between 0 and 20th. But somehow DCUM's take away is that the people in the 80th %ile are disadvantaged over the poor people.

+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.

The people making 175k are 100% full pay. Private universities like in this article are approaching $90k PER YEAR. $360K FOR AN UNDERGRAD degree--more than a house in most areas of the US.

People making $65-75k will be able to attend need-blind schools FREE. Ivies will be free. If you live in North Carolina and some other states--in state tuition is completely free. Anyone making under $150k in NC no longer has to pay a single dime for tuition in NC.

Are you sure "people making 175k are 100% full pay"? Net price calculator at private colleges say differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try to understand the operational business model of a University college using student tuition as the revenue stream. Sure there are the endowment and research grants revenue streams, but focus on the Tuition line of business.

Tuition revenue from the high income family students is used to not only cover their tuition cost but also to cover the tuition cost of the other half of the student population from mid to low income families. So when a high income student pays, say $30k in full tuition, $15k goes to cover that student's instruction costs, and the other $15k goes to cover another qualified low income student in the form of financial aid. There is nothing to debate here: university needs full tuition paying students to exist as a business. In other words, low income merit students need the high income students to be enrolled and fully pay their tuition on time.

That said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious. Here is where the legacy students come into the picture. Legacy students bring the emotional commitment to stick around for full four years paying full tuition and graduate with a degree. By offering admissions to studious legacy students, the university is making sure the lower income students have a reliable funding source to cover their tuition costs.

Exactly. Legacy (along with the “development list” or whatever the individual college calls it) is a way to appear to be complying with their commitment to be “need blind” without maintaining a certain % of full pay students. There is no way that these universities would maintain such a consistent, year in, year out balance between full pay and scholarship students without some sort of finger on the scale. It’s just not plausible.

Except that some of these schools have endowments so big that they are basically just investment funds that run a school on the side for funsies. I think I read somewhere that the investment income alone from Harvard fund is greater than the entire budget of Harvard. This means they could offer free tuition to *everyone* and their endowment would still grow every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

So what exactly do you propose a university eliminate or reduce to charge lower tuition? Most 80k+ schools have smaller class sizes---so would you prefer your kid sit in lectures with 300-500 kids for most of their classes? That way they can fire 1/3 of the professors. Let's go back to 1 cafeteria on campus for the 6K undergrads and make it just a normal college cafeteria like we had 30+ years ago.....2 entrees, salad bar, cereal and 1 dessert option for each dinner. No specialty dining or options because those truly cost money and it's much cheaper to run a basic cafeteria in one place everyone just has to walk 20 mins to get to.

Forget the new chemistry labs---kids can squeeze 100 into the lab space for their Orgo Chem lab instead of 25---more partners, less learning for you to do hands on.

I suppose I lived without shuttle busses on my campus 30+ years ago, so kids can just walk the 1.5 miles from one end to the other even at -5 degrees and 11pm, same for the campus security/safe walk---we lived without it, kids can today as well.

Yes they can cut some administration salaries, but the fact is universities cost a lot to run. Dorms cost more than apartments because they are not cheap---the RAs/RHD/services provided to help kids on campus cost money. Maintaining old dorms is expensive as well.

A significant chunk of the increase in college costs is administrative salaries and expenses. During college tours, I was struck by the sheer number of support programs that didn’t exist when I was in college. Back then they let you in and it was sink or swim. Now there are countless counseling and tutoring services — study skills, 24 hour writing center, specialized tutoring, identity support groups, etc etc. As I understand it, the goal is to increase graduation rates, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That’s great, but it’s not cheap, and a largely hidden cost of expanding the populations served by these institutions.

I am sure that counseling is only part of the rising cost issue. If a college adds more facilities, it will need the staff to maintain them, from the janitor to the office person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try to understand the operational business model of a University college using student tuition as the revenue stream. Sure there are the endowment and research grants revenue streams, but focus on the Tuition line of business.

Tuition revenue from the high income family students is used to not only cover their tuition cost but also to cover the tuition cost of the other half of the student population from mid to low income families. So when a high income student pays, say $30k in full tuition, $15k goes to cover that student's instruction costs, and the other $15k goes to cover another qualified low income student in the form of financial aid. There is nothing to debate here: university needs full tuition paying students to exist as a business. In other words, low income merit students need the high income students to be enrolled and fully pay their tuition on time.

That said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious. Here is where the legacy students come into the picture. Legacy students bring the emotional commitment to stick around for full four years paying full tuition and graduate with a degree. By offering admissions to studious legacy students, the university is making sure the lower income students have a reliable funding source to cover their tuition costs.

Exactly. Legacy (along with the “development list” or whatever the individual college calls it) is a way to appear to be complying with their commitment to be “need blind” without maintaining a certain % of full pay students. There is no way that these universities would maintain such a consistent, year in, year out balance between full pay and scholarship students without some sort of finger on the scale. It’s just not plausible.

Except that some of these schools have endowments so big that they are basically just investment funds that run a school on the side for funsies. I think I read somewhere that the investment income alone from Harvard fund is greater than the entire budget of Harvard. This means they could offer free tuition to *everyone* and their endowment would still grow every year.

My husband has said when the market/economy changes a big chunk of these endowments are going to disappear overnight-due to these investments. It’s going to change a lot of the way they have been operating.0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

I just looked it up and 15% of Harvards class is from the top 1%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university

That also says that 52% of Harvard students are between 80 and 99th %ile and 4.5% are between 0 and 20th. But somehow DCUM's take away is that the people in the 80th %ile are disadvantaged over the poor people.

+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.

This is me. And I've been saving for it so I'm in a position of having about being a full pay family. College tuition will be about 75% of my take home salary for 8 years. It will wipe out more than 1/3 of my total assets. To pay for colleges with so much money hoarded away in a tax advantaged that they don't really even need to charge tuition. In many ways, I would have been better off either spending this on vacations and being 175k HHI with lower assets or had kept with the lower stress 100k job. Single mom, two kids, full pay.

Also, gig workers like myself get screwed on what we can funnel into retirement and shelter from all this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try to understand the operational business model of a University college using student tuition as the revenue stream. Sure there are the endowment and research grants revenue streams, but focus on the Tuition line of business.

Tuition revenue from the high income family students is used to not only cover their tuition cost but also to cover the tuition cost of the other half of the student population from mid to low income families. So when a high income student pays, say $30k in full tuition, $15k goes to cover that student's instruction costs, and the other $15k goes to cover another qualified low income student in the form of financial aid. There is nothing to debate here: university needs full tuition paying students to exist as a business. In other words, low income merit students need the high income students to be enrolled and fully pay their tuition on time.

That said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious. Here is where the legacy students come into the picture. Legacy students bring the emotional commitment to stick around for full four years paying full tuition and graduate with a degree. By offering admissions to studious legacy students, the university is making sure the lower income students have a reliable funding source to cover their tuition costs.

Exactly. Legacy (along with the “development list” or whatever the individual college calls it) is a way to appear to be complying with their commitment to be “need blind” without maintaining a certain % of full pay students. There is no way that these universities would maintain such a consistent, year in, year out balance between full pay and scholarship students without some sort of finger on the scale. It’s just not plausible.

Except that some of these schools have endowments so big that they are basically just investment funds that run a school on the side for funsies. I think I read somewhere that the investment income alone from Harvard fund is greater than the entire budget of Harvard. This means they could offer free tuition to *everyone* and their endowment would still grow every year.

My husband has said when the market/economy changes a big chunk of these endowments are going to disappear overnight-due to these investments. It’s going to change a lot of the way they have been operating.0

Princeton's endowment was up over 46% in FY21, and down 1% the next year. Which you know, is still up. When you're making 30-50% return on the regular, even a big bad year isn't all that bad. It takes them back to where they were a year or two ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

I just looked it up and 15% of Harvards class is from the top 1%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university

That also says that 52% of Harvard students are between 80 and 99th %ile and 4.5% are between 0 and 20th. But somehow DCUM's take away is that the people in the 80th %ile are disadvantaged over the poor people.

+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.

When you save, you accumulate money that disqualifies you from receiving need-based financial aid.

When you spend, you have no assets and your kid can go to college for free.

So you and your unbearable sanctimony have it all precisely backwards.

So take the approach of not saving and hope for "help" with college. And I suppose help with retirement and other things in life as well.....

Or be responsible and recognize your privilege and attempt to save.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

I’ve been saying this for years here and get slammed each time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

I just looked it up and 15% of Harvards class is from the top 1%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university

That also says that 52% of Harvard students are between 80 and 99th %ile and 4.5% are between 0 and 20th. But somehow DCUM's take away is that the people in the 80th %ile are disadvantaged over the poor people.

+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.

When you save, you accumulate money that disqualifies you from receiving need-based financial aid.

When you spend, you have no assets and your kid can go to college for free.

So you and your unbearable sanctimony have it all precisely backwards.

So take the approach of not saving and hope for "help" with college. And I suppose help with retirement and other things in life as well.....

Or be responsible and recognize your privilege and attempt to save.

Or we as citizens can say, we don't accept the premise. These are not the two choices. We are paying 400k PER YEAR for each prisoner held, surely we can do something for kids who want to establish a career or a trade. Maybe we could have a program where kids work for two years post-high school for low pay in a domestic program and receive a voucher for two years of college/modified GI Bill. Maybe we could have a federal student loan program with 2% interest rates. Double the Pell program. Tax endowments. Maybe we need to take physical and mental health care out from under the umbrella of colleges and move them to health centers dedicated to serving 18-34 year olds in every municipality. Maybe we could use more "ghost hospital care" like they have in Europe where a doctor or nurse comes to you. House calls are cheaper and can handle most things. Having infectious people crawl out of their sick bed and get to a hospital is bad for patients and the rest of the waiting room. (And demand a straight line tuition decrease that reflects the savings once).

The ocean of options is deep and we're not exploring them at all.

I dont see how pitting parents who are trying to figure out out to pay college bills that range from 200-400k is constructive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

So what exactly do you propose a university eliminate or reduce to charge lower tuition? Most 80k+ schools have smaller class sizes---so would you prefer your kid sit in lectures with 300-500 kids for most of their classes? That way they can fire 1/3 of the professors. Let's go back to 1 cafeteria on campus for the 6K undergrads and make it just a normal college cafeteria like we had 30+ years ago.....2 entrees, salad bar, cereal and 1 dessert option for each dinner. No specialty dining or options because those truly cost money and it's much cheaper to run a basic cafeteria in one place everyone just has to walk 20 mins to get to.

Forget the new chemistry labs---kids can squeeze 100 into the lab space for their Orgo Chem lab instead of 25---more partners, less learning for you to do hands on.

I suppose I lived without shuttle busses on my campus 30+ years ago, so kids can just walk the 1.5 miles from one end to the other even at -5 degrees and 11pm, same for the campus security/safe walk---we lived without it, kids can today as well.

Yes they can cut some administration salaries, but the fact is universities cost a lot to run. Dorms cost more than apartments because they are not cheap---the RAs/RHD/services provided to help kids on campus cost money. Maintaining old dorms is expensive as well.

A significant chunk of the increase in college costs is administrative salaries and expenses. During college tours, I was struck by the sheer number of support programs that didn’t exist when I was in college. Back then they let you in and it was sink or swim. Now there are countless counseling and tutoring services — study skills, 24 hour writing center, specialized tutoring, identity support groups, etc etc. As I understand it, the goal is to increase graduation rates, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That’s great, but it’s not cheap, and a largely hidden cost of expanding the populations served by these institutions.

All excellent services that should be available for college students. Happy to pay for those, incase my kid needs it. If this helps disadvantaged students make it thru college in 4-5 years, I'm happy to pay. The benefits for getting those students thru college and onto great careers is too good to give up. Adjusting to college and navigating your way thru is much more challenging for an 18yo whose parents didn't attend college, the lack of home support can be huge. Add in often times lower income and the issues/stress of worrying how to pay for everything is added stress many do not understand.